Introducción, párrafo 1

## Introducción

It has been claimed that an increasing number of people are now able to

manage their political, social, and productive lives through a variety

of interdependent networks enabled by the Information and Communication

Technologies (ICT) (Castells 2000, 2003; Benkler 2006; Bauwens 2005; Perez

2002). However, authors, such as Webster (2002a, 2002b), have argued

against the idea of an “information society”. They emphasise the

continuities of the current age with former capitalist-oriented social

and economic arrangements (Schiller 1981, 1984, 1996; Webster 2002a,

2002b). Kumar (1995, 154) maintains that the information explosion

“has not produced a radical shift in the way industrial societies

are organized” to conclude that “the imperatives of profit, power

and control seem as predominant now as they have ever been in the

history of capitalist industrialism”. In addition, Berry (2008, 369)

postulates that scholars such as Benkler (2006) fail to recognise the

extent to which network forms of production “will be co-opted into

mainstream 'industrial' ways of production”.  Through several cases of

successful networked-based, collaborative projects such as free software

or Wikipedia, we see the emergence of new ‘‘technological-economic

feasibility spaces’’ for social practice (Benkler 2006, 31). These

feasibility spaces include different social and economic arrangements,

in contrast to what Kumar and Webster claim, where profit, power,

and control do not seem as predominant as they have been in the

history of modern capitalism. Benkler (2006) has argued that from this

new communicational environment a new social productive model, i.e.,

Commons-based peer production, is emerging different from the industrial

one. Peer production, exemplified by various free software (GNU, the Linux

kernel, KDE) and free content (Wikipedia) projects, makes information

sharing more important than the value of proprietary strategies and

allows for large-scale information production efforts (Benkler 2006). In this context, peer production could

be considered an early seed form stage of a new mode of production

It has been claimed that an increasing number of people are now able

to manage their political, social, and productive lives through

a variety of interdependent networks enabled by the Information

and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Castells 2000, 2003; Benkler

2006; Bauwens 2005; Perez 2002). However, authors, such as Webster

(2002a, 2002b), have argued against the idea of an “information

society”. They emphasise the continuities of the current age with

former capitalist-oriented social and economic arrangements (Schiller

1981, 1984, 1996; Webster 2002a, 2002b). Kumar (1995, 154) maintains

that the information explosion “has not produced a radical shift in

the way industrial societies are organized” to conclude that “the

imperatives of profit, power and control seem as predominant now as

they have ever been in the history of capitalist industrialism”. In

addition, Berry (2008, 369) postulates that scholars such as Benkler

(2006) fail to recognise the extent to which network forms of production

“will be co-opted into mainstream 'industrial' ways of production”.

Se ha dicho que un número creciente de personas son ahora capaces de

administrar sus vidas políticas, sociales y productivas a través de una

variedad de redes interdependientes habilitadas por las Tecnologías de

la Información y la Comunicación (TICs) [@castells-2000; @castells-2003;

@benkler-2006; @bauwens-2005; @perez-2002].  Sin embargo, autores como

Webster [-@webster-2002a; -@webster-2002b] se oponen a la idea de una

"sociedad de la información".  Enfatizan en cambio la continuidad de la

era actual con antiguos arreglos socioeconómicos capitalistas

[@schiller-1981; @schiller-1984; @schiller-1996; @webster-2002a;

@webster-2002b].  Kumar [-@kumar-1995, pp. 154] sostiene que la

explosión de la información "no ha producido un cambio radical en la

forma en que se organizan las sociedades industriales" para concluir que

"los imperativos del lucro, el poder y el control parecen tan

predominantes ahora como lo han sido durante toda la historia del

industrialismo capitalista".  Además, Berry [-@berry-2008, pp. 369]

postula que académicos como Benkler [-@benkler-2006] fallan en reconocer

la extensión en que las formas de producción en red "serán cooptadas en

las formas de producción 'industrial' hegemónicas".

Through several cases of successful networked-based, collaborative

projects such as free software or Wikipedia, we see the emergence of

new ‘‘technological-economic feasibility spaces’’ for social practice

(Benkler 2006, 31). These feasibility spaces include different social

and economic arrangements, in contrast to what Kumar and Webster claim,

where profit, power, and control do not seem as predominant as they

have been in the history of modern capitalism. Benkler (2006) has

argued that from this new communicational environment a new social

productive model, i.e.,  Commons-based peer production, is emerging

different from the industrial one. Peer production, exemplified by

various free software (GNU, the Linux kernel, KDE) and free content

(Wikipedia) projects, makes information sharing more important than the

value of proprietary strategies and allows for large-scale information

production efforts (Benkler 2006). In this context, peer production

could be considered an early seed form stage of a new mode of production

enabled through Internet-based coordination where decisions arise from

the free engagement and cooperation of the people. They coalesce to

create common value without recourse to monetary compensation as key

motivating factor (Bauwens 2005; Orsi 2009; Kostakis 2013).  Our take is

that peer production is a social advancement within capitalism but with

various post-capitalistic aspects, in need of protection, enforcement,

stimulation and connection with progressive social movements around

Commons-oriented policy platforms. As “Commons” we understand the

cultural and natural resources, which are held in common (not owned

privately) and remain accessible to all members of a society (see Ostrom

1990; Hardt and Negri 2011; Bollier 2009). In this essay, our point of

departure is the digital Commons (knowledge, software, design) since peer

production was first noticed in the information sphere of production. We

consider the “Commons” a third sector alongside the market and the

state, which conceptualises the deep affinities amongst several forms

of collaboration and helps validate their distinctive social dynamics

as significant forces in economic and cultural production (Bollier in

Laisne et al. 2010).  The term “peer production” or “peer-to-peer

production” originates from the innovative nature of peer-to-peer (P2P)

networking architecture that enabled the advent of the Internet.  The

introduction of P2P architecture in the social relations of production and

exchange of goods and services is based on the idea that every networked

community, just like every networked node, becomes a “server” to

satisfy the needs of other communities, as well as a “client” to

satisfy its own. Peer production operates on a non-competitive, synergetic

basis leading to an optimal distribution of resources (Benkler 2006;

Bauwens 2005, 2009). The traditional market approach with its pricing

mechanism has mostly been unable to achieve such optimal allocations due

to productive information asymmetry whereas peer production maximises

the access to information. Contrary to the traditional economic thought,

in peer production we become witnesses of consumer/producer dichotomy's

motivating factor (Bauwens 2005; Orsi 2009; Kostakis 2013).  Our take

is that peer production is a social advancement within capitalism

but with various post-capitalistic aspects, in need of protection,

enforcement, stimulation and connection with progressive social

movements around Commons-oriented policy platforms. As “Commons” we

understand the cultural and natural resources, which are held in

common (not owned privately) and remain accessible to all members of

a society (see Ostrom 1990; Hardt and Negri 2011; Bollier 2009). In

this essay, our point of departure is the digital Commons (knowledge,

software, design) since peer production was first noticed in the

information sphere of production. We consider the “Commons” a third

sector alongside the market and the state, which conceptualises the

deep affinities amongst several forms of collaboration and helps

validate their distinctive social dynamics as significant forces in

economic and cultural production (Bollier in Laisne et al. 2010).  The

term “peer production” or “peer-to-peer production” originates from

the innovative nature of peer-to-peer (P2P) networking architecture

that enabled the advent of the Internet.  The introduction of P2P

architecture in the social relations of production and exchange of

goods and services is based on the idea that every networked community,

just like every networked node, becomes a “server” to satisfy the needs

of other communities, as well as a “client” to satisfy its own. Peer

production operates on a non-competitive, synergetic basis leading

to an optimal distribution of resources (Benkler 2006; Bauwens 2005,

2009). The traditional market approach with its pricing mechanism

has mostly been unable to achieve such optimal allocations due to

productive information asymmetry whereas peer production maximises the

access to information. Contrary to the traditional economic thought, in

peer production we become witnesses of consumer/producer dichotomy's

collapse towards a new understanding in the form of the “multitude”

(Hardt and Negri 2001), “prosumers” (Toffler and Toffler 2006),

“produsers” (Bruns 2008), or “user-innovation communities” (von

Hippel 2005).  Further, it has been shown (Benkler 2002, 2006; Bauwens

2005) how peer production, given certain resources, optimally exploits the

“produsers” (Bruns 2008), or “user-innovation communities” (von Hippel

2005).  Further, it has been shown (Benkler 2002, 2006; Bauwens 2005)

how peer production, given certain resources, optimally exploits the

skills and abilities of the producers involving participatory ownership

structures, participatory learning and decision-making (Fuchs 2013).

Whereas the firm binds by contract only a fraction of capabilities,

peer production can evolve into a parody bringing to the fore the case

of free software. To tackle the threat of the Commons' full absorption

as well as of the underpinning peer-to-peer relations into the dominant

mode of production, we conclude by arguing in favour of a certain working

agenda for Commons-based communities.

mode of production, we conclude by arguing in favour of a certain

working agenda for Commons-based communities.

1. From the Tragedy to the Parody of the Commons Benkler (2006)

postulates his assumptions about the conditions for the development of